The (other) Argument he won't touch.

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

In another thread, I have met a participant who has refused engage with a particularly simple brilliant observation of mine, so I've decided to open it up for further comment elsewhere.

This particular opponent insist that in Mt. 24:1-3 (below), the Jesus was in no way shape or form talking about the temple or its buildings when He said, "there will not be left here one stone upon the other.
1Jesus left the temple and was going away, when his disciples came to point out to him the buildings of the temple. 2But he answered them, "You see all these, do you not? Truly, I say to you, there will not be left here one stone upon another that will not be thrown down." 3As he sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately, saying, "Tell us, when will these things be, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the close of the age?"

However, when I ask what Jesus meant when He said the exact same thing in Mk. 13. Zilch, zip, nada, nothing.

1And as he came out of the temple, one of his disciples said to him, "Look, Teacher, what wonderful stones and what wonderful buildings!" 2And Jesus said to him, "Do you see these great buildings? There will not be left here one stone upon another that will not be thrown down."

Was Jesus talking about the temple and it's buildings in Mk. 13:1-3?

If yes, why should we doubt that He was talking about the temple in Mt. 24:1-3?

If no, what did He mean when He asked, 'Do you see these great buildings?'

This isn't rocket science, but for some reason my opponent does not wish to address Mk. 13:1-3.

Any other futurist who would like to take up the call?

[Ted]

Faramir,

Don't expect a coherent reply from him. But let me add a bit.

In 24:2, "all these things" is panta tauta. In 24:3, "all" is missing, but "these things" is tauta.

The disciples specifically followed up on Jesus' reference in 24:2 to the Temple buildings in 24:1, using the same word Jesus used in 24:2. It's unavoidable. They did ask about the temple.

Ted

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

Faramir,

Don't expect a coherent reply from him. But let me add a bit.

In 24:2, "all these things" is panta tauta. In 24:3, "all" is missing, but "these things" is tauta.

The disciples specifically followed up on Jesus' reference in 24:2 to the Temple buildings in 24:1, using the same word Jesus used in 24:2. It's unavoidable. They did ask about the temple.

Ted
I agree 100%. In fact I have said as much to this opponent. However, this opponent insisit that panta tauta in v. 2 is not talking about the temple buildings. Which is not possible gramatically. But my opponents seems to think so, which is why I brought up Mk. 13:1-2, which is an even clearer (if possible) refference to the destruction of the temple then standing.

I see no way around it. Appararently my opponent on the other thread dosn't either. The silence is loud and clear.

[Terral]

Faramir:
Faramir >> In another thread, I have met a participant who has refused engage with a particularly simple brilliant observation of mine, so I've decided to open it up for further comment elsewhere.
This debate is the continuation of a discussion that began on my thread called “Classic Question For Preterists” (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=45484 (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=45484) ). Faramir brought this “Mark 13” point up in Post #7. Looking down his post you will note the tendency to grace us with his one or two sentence answers using little or no Scripture. Also evident is the Preterist tendency here to cast stones at me instead of addressing the topic of the thread or any of my arguments. My reply to his statements on this matter appear in Post #10, 12 and 22, where his understanding of the Greek is shown to be very limited to say the least. Mr. Faramir is basing the hypothesis of his OP here upon a false premise, as is common among those believing in this theology we know as Preterism. The right answer is found by ascertaining the correct context of Christ’s use of the phrase “all these things” for Matthew 24:33+34. Mr. Faramir wants you to believe that Christ’s answer to the Twelve (Matt. 24:4-31) is a reply concerning ‘all these things’ (stones: Matt. 24:1+2) being cast down in 70 AD by the Romans. My contention is that Christ’s answer is to the question of the Twelve concerning ‘all these things’ (events) leading up to ‘Your coming’ and the ‘end of the age.’ Matt. 24:3. I will present my arguments here again and plead my case to your common sense, so that you can decide whether the context of Christ’s Olivet Discourse is about “all these things” (stones: vs. 2) or “all these things” (events: vs. 3).
Faramir >> This particular opponent insist that in Mt. 24:1-3 (below), the Jesus was in no way shape or form talking about the temple or its buildings when He said, "there will not be left here one stone upon the other.
Faramir is overstating the facts in our debate, and is guilty here of a premeditated fabrication that is simply untrue. This point was addressed in Post #22:
Faramir >> What Terrill did, is they found a difference in word form and then they act as if it somehow makes me saying αυτη is in Mt. 24:2 is wrong.

Terral’s Reply (w/Bold highlight added here*) >> Holy Molies . . . the only place the singular exists in these target verses (2, 3, 33, 34) is in verse 34 (this generation). Every other use of ‘outos’ here is PLURAL. “these things.” Christ is referring to everything being destroyed in verse 2*, but after that ‘these things’ is a reference to all these ‘events’ and signs that take place.
The Temple and all the Temple buildings are obviously destroyed, as the Mount of Olives is split in two (Zech. 14:3+4) when Christ returns at the ‘end of the age,’ along with the entire city of Jerusalem. This fact does not alter the truth that Christ is referring back to ‘all these events’ (Matt. 24:3-29), when saying “all these things” concerning ‘this generation’ in Matthew 24:33+34. If you will keep your eye on this simple fact, then the smokescreen tactic Faramir is trying to pull will become quite evident.
Scripture >> Jesus came out from the temple and was going away when His disciples came up to point out the temple buildings to Him. And He said to them, “Do you not see all these things? Truly I say to you, not one stone here will be left upon another, which will not be torn down.” As He was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately, saying, “Tell us, when will these things happen, and what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?” Matt. 24:1-3.

Faramir >> However, when I ask what Jesus meant when He said the exact same thing in Mk. 13. Zilch, zip, nada, nothing.
That is a boldfaced lie . . . Faramir brought up the point and I answered it in Post # 16:

Faramir (Post # 16) >> You are also pretending that the parallel discourse in Luke does not exist: (Luke 21:5-7) No mention of the Mt. of Olives there. Where from the Luke text do you get 'these things' = Mt. of Olives? But the real kicker is Mark 13: . . .

Terral’s Reply (Post #16) >> Where did you get the notion that I interpret ‘all these things’ = Mount of Olives? When the Mount of Olives is split in two (Zech. 14:3+4), then ALL these things are tumbling down. My argument is that your interpretation of ‘all these things’ = Temple is incorrect, as if what the Romans did in 70 AD is the fulfillment of Zechariah 14:3+4 when Christ returns. In fact, Christ never mentions the Temple or anything being destroyed (in Zech. 14 proportions) in Matthew 24, because that occurs after His coming (Matt. 24:30) with His angels (vs. 31). He stopped telling the story before the Mount of Olives cracks in two! Now isn’t that a real kick in the pants?! You are pointing to 70 AD (those bad Romans) for the fulfillment of Matthew 24, and I am pointing back to Zechariah 14. My case has a firm basis in Biblical fact, and yours has NONE.

My interpretation of Christ’s references to ‘all these things’ (Matt. 24:33+34) is ‘all these events’ that occur between Matt. 24:3-29. They are the people who will be living to see Him ‘at the door.’ Vs. 33. The restored Temple, buildings, Jerusalem, Mount of Olives are all destroyed when Christ returns at the end of the age, and the events of Zechariah 14 are fulfilled. That is the time that the Mount of Olives is split in two and EVERYTHING (‘all these things’) is destroyed.
Faramir quotes >> Mk. 13:1-3 1And as he came out of the temple, one of his disciples said to him, "Look, Teacher, what wonderful stones and what wonderful buildings!" 2And Jesus said to him, "Do you see these great buildings? There will not be left here one stone upon another that will not be thrown down."

Faramir’s Question >> Was Jesus talking about the temple and it's buildings in Mk. 13:1-3?
Yes, but you slipped up here and included verse 3, which is only half of the sentence and omits the question of the Disciples in verse 4. Since you only quoted the first two verses, then Yes, Christ is talking about the Temple and the buildings here. This parallels Christ’s question and comments in Matthew 24:1+2, which we agree is a reference to at least the Temple and the buildings. However, the question of the Twelve in Matthew 24:3 is not about ‘stones,’ but in reference to ‘events,’ i.e., “when will ‘these things’ happen . . .”. They are obviously not asking when will these ‘stones’ happen, but asking when will these ‘events’ take place. We know this is true, because Christ began to describe the signs and these events taking place that had absolutely nothing to do with the Temple. Instead, Christ began talking about ‘wars and rumors of wars’ (vs. 6) with ‘famines and earthquakes’ (vs. 7). Faramir is so anxious to convince you that Christ is talking about ‘all these things’ (Matt. 24:33+34) as ‘stones’ and the Temple, that he has lost sight of the fact that Christ is been describing all the ‘events’ leading up to ‘Your coming’ at the ‘end of the age’ all the way from verse 4!

I see no reason to belabor this point and to repeat myself over and over again. The Twelve obviously asked Him about “when” these events take place related to “Your coming” and the “End of the Age.” (Matt. 24:3). Christ gave them the answer in signs (all these events) and parables (vs. 33+34) because ‘when’ these things take place is known to “the Father alone.” Matt. 24:36. When did Christ’s feet touch the ground in Matthew 24:3-36? NOWHERE. He stopped giving the account of Your coming at the End of the Age, with Him coming on the clouds (vs. 30), and the angels gathering in verse 31. Zechariah describes His feet on the ground, before the Mount of Olives is split in two.

“Then the LORD will go forth and fight against those nations, as when He fights on a day of battle. In that day His feet will stand on the Mount of Olives, which is in front of Jerusalem on the east; and the Mount of Olives will be split in its middle from east to west by a very large valley, so that half of the mountain will move toward the north and the other half toward the south.”
Therefore, Christ did not get to the part about the destruction of Jerusalem in His descriptions of the end of the age here in Matthew 24:3-31. If the Temple is rebuilt and torn down a 100 times, then Christ is still describing all of these things (Zech. 14) being fulfilled at “Your coming” at the “End of the Age,” which is most definitely still future. The Romans of 70 AD have NOTHING whatsoever to do with the fulfillment of anything Christ is describing in Matthew 24. The Preterists here are twisting Scripture to prop up that man-made interpretation.
Faramir >> If yes, why should we doubt that He was talking about the temple in Mt. 24:1-3?
Because, Christ asked the Twelve a question in verse 2: “Do you not see all these things?,” and their question was regarding ‘when’ all these things (events) take place with reference to “Your coming” and the “end of the age.” Vs. 3. Therefore, Christ’s parable is teaching to them about ‘what’ you [ this generation ] will see (“Your coming”), ‘when’ all these events take place at the ‘end of the age.’ Matt. 24:33+34.
Faramir >> If no, what did He mean when He asked, 'Do you see these great buildings?'
Christ was not answering His own question about the buildings in His Olivet Discourse of Matthew 24:4-31. He was answering the question of the Twelve about ‘when’ all these things (events) take place. You are Pretending that the Disciples are asking about ‘what’ stones, when they are asking about ‘when’ these ‘events’ take place.

[Zechariah 14] :offtopic:ß Faramir :lmbo: :lol: :lmbo:


In Christ,

Terral

[Xavier]

[Zechariah 14] :offtopic:[font=Wingdings]ß Faramir :lmbo: :lol: :lmbo:

Funny... You're the only person running away from this thread:
http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=45387

Perhaps you'd like to apologize to Faramir for lying about his non-engagement of Zechariah 14... :smile:

Yours,
Xavier

PS: Sorry, btw, TWeb wasn't able to parse your garbage code, so instead of fixing it... I'll let the world marvel at it.

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

Faramir:

This debate is the continuation of a discussion that began on my thread called “Classic Question For Preterists” (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=45484 (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=45484) ). Faramir brought this “Mark 13” point up in Post #7. Looking down his post you will note the tendency to grace us with his one or two sentence answers using little or no Scripture. Also evident is the Preterist tendency here to cast stones at me instead of addressing the topic of the thread or any of my arguments. One or two sentences is all it takes to refute Terral.

My reply to his statements on this matter appear in Post #10, 12 and 22, where his understanding of the Greek is shown to be very limited to say the least. Casting stones are we mr. Terral, plank in eye?


Mr. Faramir is basing the hypothesis of his OP here upon a false premise, as is common among those believing in this theology we know as Preterism. The right answer is found by ascertaining the correct context of Christ’s use of the phrase “all these things” for Matthew 24:33+34. Mr. Faramir wants you to believe that Christ’s answer to the Twelve (Matt. 24:4-31) is a reply concerning ‘all these things’ (stones: Matt. 24:1+2) being cast down in 70 AD by the Romans. My contention is that Christ’s answer is to the question of the Twelve concerning ‘all these things’ (events) leading up to ‘Your coming’ and the ‘end of the age.’ Matt. 24:3. I will present my arguments here again and plead my case to your common sense, so that you can decide whether the context of Christ’s Olivet Discourse is about “all these things” (stones: vs. 2) or “all these things” (events: vs. 3). But what about Mark 13:1-2

Faramir is overstating the facts in our debate, and is guilty here of a premeditated fabrication that is simply untrue. This point was addressed in Post #22:

The Temple and all the Temple buildings are obviously destroyed, as the Mount of Olives is split in two (Zech. 14:3+4) when Christ returns at the ‘end of the age,’ along with the entire city of Jerusalem. This fact does not alter the truth that Christ is referring back to ‘all these events’ (Matt. 24:3-29), when saying “all these things” concerning ‘this generation’ in Matthew 24:33+34. If you will keep your eye on this simple fact, then the smokescreen tactic Faramir is trying to pull will become quite evident.
blah, blah, blah. What Temple are obiously destroyed? The one that was obviously destroyed in AD 70? Yes. The one in Mark 13:1-2.

[quote]That is a boldfaced lie . . . Faramir brought up the point and I answered it in Post # 16:

Faramir (Post # 16) >> You are also pretending that the parallel discourse in Luke does not exist: (Luke 21:5-7) No mention of the Mt. of Olives there. Where from the Luke text do you get 'these things' = Mt. of Olives? But the real kicker is Mark 13: . . .

Terral’s Reply (Post #16) >> Where did you get the notion that I interpret ‘all these things’ = Mount of Olives? When the Mount of Olives is split in two (Zech. 14:3+4), then ALL these things are tumbling down. My argument is that your interpretation of ‘all these things’ = Temple is incorrect, as if what the Romans did in 70 AD is the fulfillment of Zechariah 14:3+4 when Christ returns. In fact, Christ never mentions the Temple or anything being destroyed (in Zech. 14 proportions) in Matthew 24, because that occurs after His coming (Matt. 24:30) with His angels (vs. 31). He stopped telling the story before the Mount of Olives cracks in two! Now isn’t that a real kick in the pants?! You are pointing to 70 AD (those bad Romans) for the fulfillment of Matthew 24, and I am pointing back to Zechariah 14. My case has a firm basis in Biblical fact, and yours has NONE. [.quote]

I repeat. Zilch, zip, nadda about Mark 13:1-2. If you response above was to my comments about Mark 13:1-2, the excuse me for not recognizing that fact since you failed to even mention the passage!!!!!

<snip> more off topic stuff <snip?

My OP still stands. Notice readers that Terral never once addressed Mark 13:1-3. I had three questions . Terral never answered any of them.

Terral. This is my thread stay on topic or get off my thread.

Answer these three questions. And only these three questions:

Was Jesus talking about the temple and it's buildings in Mk. 13:1-3?

If yes, why should we doubt that He was talking about the temple in Mt. 24:1-3?

If no, what did He mean when He asked, 'Do you see these great buildings?'

Notice that in order to answer question #2, you have to answer it in relation to question # 1. Repeating you same tired arguments is not an answer to this thread.

Your brother in Christ,
:opus:

[Mickey]

I will address the Lord's answer to His disciples question in regard to the Temple then standing.The Lord describes those events at Luke 21:21-25.Two differnt sieges of Jerusalem are in view in the Olivet Discourse.At Luke 21:21-25 the Lord describes the seige by Titus in AD 70.And that is the answer to the disciples question regarding the Temple then standing.

In Luke the "sign" is the compassing of Jerusalem by armies (v.20) but at Matthew 24:15 and Mark 13:14 the "sign" is the setting up of the abomination of desolation in the Holy Place.

But the presterists will ask,"The Lord prophesised that the Temple then standing would be destroyed,so how can this be made to a future yet to be rebuilt Temple?"

The preterists fail to understand the principle of "continuity" in the history of the Temple.The Temple could be completely destroyed and then be rebuilt and still be considered the same Temple.That is how Haggai could ask:

"Who is among you that saw this house in its former glory"(Hag.2:3).

And he says,"The glory of the latter house shall be greater that the former"(Hag.2:9).

So we can see that the Jews believed that any rebuilt Temple is the same Temple that preceded it.

Now that this question has been addressed by a futurist,why will no preterist ever answer the verses that make it plain that the things that will happen at the "end of the age" will involve not just Israel,but "all them that dwell on the face of the whole earth"(Lk.21:35)?

In Christ,

Mickey

[eschaton]

In another thread, I have met a participant who has refused engage with a particularly simple brilliant observation of mine, so I've decided to open it up for further comment elsewhere.

This particular opponent insist that in Mt. 24:1-3 (below), the Jesus was in no way shape or form talking about the temple or its buildings when He said, "there will not be left here one stone upon the other.
1Jesus left the temple and was going away, when his disciples came to point out to him the buildings of the temple. 2But he answered them, "You see all these, do you not? Truly, I say to you, there will not be left here one stone upon another that will not be thrown down." 3As he sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately, saying, "Tell us, when will these things be, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the close of the age?"

However, when I ask what Jesus meant when He said the exact same thing in Mk. 13. Zilch, zip, nada, nothing.

1And as he came out of the temple, one of his disciples said to him, "Look, Teacher, what wonderful stones and what wonderful buildings!" 2And Jesus said to him, "Do you see these great buildings? There will not be left here one stone upon another that will not be thrown down."

Was Jesus talking about the temple and it's buildings in Mk. 13:1-3?

If yes, why should we doubt that He was talking about the temple in Mt. 24:1-3?

If no, what did He mean when He asked, 'Do you see these great buildings?'

This isn't rocket science, but for some reason my opponent does not wish to address Mk. 13:1-3.

Any other futurist who would like to take up the call?

Mark13:2 And Jesus answering said unto him, Seest thou these great buildings? there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.

I think the question here is whether Jesus and the NT are consistent in their teaching. It wasn't unusual for the apostles to misunderstand what Jesus was talking about.

John4:32 But he said unto them, I have meat to eat that ye know not of.
33 Therefore said the disciples one to another, Hath any man brought him ought to eat?

Mat16:5 And when his disciples were come to the other side, they had forgotten to take bread.
6 Then Jesus said unto them, Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.
7 And they reasoned among themselves, saying, It is because we have taken no bread.

The 17th century commentator Matthew henry observes:
Verses 5-12. Christ speaks of spiritual things under a similitude, and the disciples misunderstand him of carnal things. He took it ill that they should think him as thoughtful about bread as they were; that they should be so little acquainted with his way of preaching. Then understood they what he meant. Christ teaches by the Spirit of wisdom in the heart, opening the understanding to the Spirit of revelation in the word.

Mat23:37 "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing.
38 Look, your house is left to you desolate.

What was the house that was left desolate? If it was the temple, why did Jesus speak as if it was already destroyed?

Luke19:41 And when he was come near, he beheld the city, and wept over it,
42 Saying, If thou hadst known, even thou, at least in this thy day, the things which belong unto thy peace! but now they are hid from thine eyes.
43 For the days shall come upon thee, that thine enemies shall cast a trench about thee, and compass thee round, and keep thee in on every side,
44 And shall lay thee even with the ground, and thy children within thee; and they shall not leave in thee one stone upon another; because thou knewest not the time of thy visitation.

Jesus speaks of an entire city here. Nowhere in history is it stated that every stone in Jerusalem was taken down in 70AD. Josephus states the contrary.

John2:19 Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.
20 Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days?
21 But he spake of the temple of his body.
XREF's: Mt 26:60,61 27:40 Mk 14:58 15:29 Mt 12:40 27:63 1Co 3:16 6:19 2Co 6:16 Eph 2:20-22 1Pe 2:4,5 Heb 8:2

So if there is any consistency here Jesus had to be looking through spiritual eyes.

Mark 8:18 Having eyes, see ye not? and having ears, hear ye not? and do ye not remember?
Mk 4:12 De 29:4 Ps 69:23 115:5-8 Isa 6:9,10 42:18-20 44:18 Jer 5:21 Mt 13:14,15 Joh 12:40 Ac 28:26,27 Ro 11:8

Jesus spoke of the spiritual temple and city.

Rev21:14 And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.
XREF's: Mat 16:18 1Co 3:10,11 Ga 2:9 Eph 2:20 3:5 4:11,12

I think it is a case of one verse taken out of context versus many taken in context.

[Terral]

Faramir:
Faramir >> I repeat. Zilch, zip, nadda about Mark 13:1-2. If you response above was to my comments about Mark 13:1-2, the excuse me for not recognizing that fact since you failed to even mention the passage!!!!!
Mark 13:1+2 parallels Matthew 24:1+2. We already understand that Christ is talking about the Temple buildings in those two verses in BOTH CHAPTERS. Since we agree on that point, then there is NOTHING TO DEBATE. We are here to determine the true identity of ‘this generation’ seeing ‘all these things’ (events). Matt. 24:33+34.
“Now learn the parable from the fig tree: when its branch has already become tender and puts forth its leaves, you know that summer is near; so, you too, when you* [ this generation ] see all these things* [ Matt. 24:3-29 ], recognize that He is near [ Your coming ], right at the door [ Matt. 24:30 ]. Truly I say to you, this generation [ seeing all these signs ] will not pass away until all these things [ Matt. 24:3-31] take place. Heaven and earth will pass away [ at the end of the age ], but My words will not pass away. But of that day and hour NO ONE knows, not even the angels of heaven, NOR THE SON, but the Father alone.” Matt. 24:32-36.
Here are our questions to ask with some answers:

1. Are we to define ‘all these things*’ as all these ‘buildings’ of verse 1+2 or all these ‘events’ from verse 3-29? Christ’s Olivet Discourse includes a series of events (wars, earthquakes, famines, false Christ’s, etc) that escalate like the birth pangs of childbirth. Therefore, we are to define ‘all these things’ as all the ‘events’ that Christ describes throughout His Discourse.

2. Are we to define ‘this generation’ as the people living in that day who saw the Temple destroyed by the Romans, or as ‘you’ who see ‘all these things’ (events) take place? Since Christ does not know the day or hour (vs. 36) then He could not know if He was addressing “your generation” or “this generation” living 10,000 years in the future. That is why He taught in signs and the parable in the first place. Preterists give Christ that information of ‘when’ these things happen, when Scripture says He has no clue about when any of these events take place.

3. If the generation of Peter and John actually saw the fulfillment of ‘all these things,’ then where is Scripture detailing those events? Where is Peter’s testimony saying, “I saw Him coming on the clouds in great glory with His angels . . . at the end of the age . . .” NOWHERE. The Preterist interpretation is self defeating, because Peter’s generation gave us the New Testament and NONE of them describe the fulfillment of Matthew 24. John even writes of the Prophecies of the “Lord’s day” (Rev. 1:10) two or three decades after Jerusalem was leveled, where Christ says, “Because you have kept the word of My perseverance, I also will keep you from the hour of testing, that hour which is about to come upon the whole world, to test those who dwell on the earth.” Rev. 3:10. Does Christ know the day or hour? NO! Matt. 24:36. Okay then, let's read Scripture for what it says, instead of building fantasy interpretations out of nothing.

In Christ,

Terral

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

Faramir:

Mark 13:1+2 parallels Matthew 24:1+2. We already understand that Christ is talking about the Temple buildings in those two verses in BOTH CHAPTERS. Since we agree on that point, then there is NOTHING TO DEBATE. We are here to determine the true identity of ‘this generation’ seeing ‘all these things’ (events). Matt. 24:33+34.



Gee Terral. I don’t know what could have possibly made me think that you said that Jesus was not talking about the Temple in Mt. 24:2. Unless it was your quotes in this thread (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=45484):

No sir. That is your interpretation of what you believe is going on in the mind of Christ, when Scripture records that He never mentioned the Temple throughout this discourse. Christ turned things around by asking a question of the Disciples in the following verse: “Do you not see all these things? Truly I say to you, not one stone here will be left upon another, which will not be torn down [ destroyed ].” Matt. 24:2. Therefore, do not begin your debate by misquoting Christ as saying “The Temple,” when He clearly asked them a question and spoke about “all these things.” It is clear that the disciples equated the destruction of all these things with “Your coming” at the “end of the age.” Christ had left the Temple back in verse one, and was on route to the Mount of Olives, where He is found sitting in verse 3. You are Pretending that He had just left the Mount of Olives and in route to the Temple between verse one and three.



If we both agree that Christ was talking about the Temple in Mt. 24:2, then why did you accuse me of misquoting Christ as saying “Temple”? And why did you say Christ left the temple in v. 1, if you believe he is talking about it in v. 1.



And if you believe that Jesus was talking about the temple in v. 2 when he said “all these things”. You must mean that the disciples equated the destruction of “all these things” with the “end of the age”. Congratulations. You are now a preterist. :grin:



First three verses? No sir. Christ left the Temple in verse 1, and asked the question of the disciples about ‘all these things’ in verse 2. He is sitting in the Mount of Olives across the Kidron Valley in the third verse. Even so you are making my point, because you have been Pretending all this time that Christ is talking about the destruction of the Temple in this entire discourse in Matthew 24. If that were true, then He should be talking about it in the following verses. The fact that He NEVER MENTIONS the Temple proves my point.



Again, you bring up the point that Christ left the Temple in verse 1 and asked the question about ‘all these things” in v. 2. Now you are saying that Jesus was talking about the Temple in v. 2? So why even mention the fact that He left the temple?



The important thing is that the question of the Twelve (vs.3) is connected back to Christ’s question and statement in verse 2. They are asking about ‘all these things’ that shall be destroyed at the ‘end of the age.’ We are to place an equal sign ( = ) at the end of verse 3. Christ’s answer (apokrinomai #611) begins in verse 4, as He begins to describe the events leading up to “Your coming” and the “end of the age” when all “these things” will be destroyed. The right interpretation has nothing to do with the Greek, but in acknowledging that Christ’s answer (Matt. 24:4-31) fits the question (Matt. 24:3).



This quote, along with your declaration in post #8 of this thread is an excellent argument for preterism.



In Mt. 24:2 Jesus is talking about the temple buildings (from post #8 in this thread)
The disciples question in v. 3 is related back to Jesus statement in v. 2 (above)
The disciples were asking about the destruction of “all these things” that Jesus was talking about in v. 2 (above)
Therefore, Jesus was talking about the destruction of the Temple in Mt. 24.


All the premises came straight from Terral. The conclusion is inescable. Either Terral is a preterist, or he has done some major back peddling. Fess up. You are really a preterist right?



Your futile exercise of attempting to force ‘houtos’ into verses 2+3 is an attempt to transform ‘all these things’ into the Temple and validated your errant assumption.



Well you agree with me that tauta in v. 2 is talking about the temple. So my “futile” effort has at least half succeeded.



What is amusing is your futile effort to pretend that you never said that “these things” in Mt. 24:2 had nothing to do with the temple.



Christ is describing the end time events leading up to His coming at the End of the age (vs. 3) in this discourse. Where does He describe the Temple being destroyed? NOWHERE.



Now earlier Terral said that the disciples were asking about the destruction of “all these things” that Jesus mentioned in v. 2. Now he is saying that v. 2 is talking about the Temple. The above contradicts these two.



No wonder it is so hard to get anything across to Terral. He can not make up his mind.



Where did you get the notion that I interpret ‘all these things’ = Mount of Olives? When the Mount of Olives is split in two (Zech. 14:3+4), then ALL these things are tumbling down. My argument is that your interpretation of ‘all these things’ = Temple is incorrect,



So which is it? Was Jesus talking about the temple when He said “all these things” in v. 2?



If yes? Then why did you waste my time debating against that very point in the other thread?







Answer: Terral got his clock cleaned :fight: and backed into a corner:igiveup:. And instead of admitting he was wrong, he pretends as if he never denied that Mt. 24:2 was about the temple.

If you want to back track, you need to cover your front tracks a little better. I was able to expose your back tracking for what it was.


Being unable to admit you were wrong is a bad trait for a debater. It will almost always come back and bite you (and Terral, you just got bit :crockbite:.)

Here is further proof of Terral’s back tracking:


Here are our questions to ask with some answers:

1. Are we to define ‘all these things*’ as all these ‘buildings’ of verse 1+2 or all these ‘events’ from verse 3-29?

Earlier Terral said that in v. 3 the disciples were asking about “these things” Christ mentioned in v.2

The important thing is that the question of the Twelve (vs.3) is connected back to Christ’s question and statement in verse 2. They are asking about ‘all these things’ that shall be destroyed at the ‘end of the age.’


Now he is saying that the disciples are asking about events in v. 3. Events Christ has not yet mentioned up to this point. That does not work in English and certainly not in Greek.


Terral it is clear that you are more interested in your interpretation being true than in what scripture actually says. When is fit’s your translation for tauta in v. 3 to be referring to v. 2, then you have it reffering back to v. 2. When you are shown that v. 2 clearly is talking about the temple, then you declare that it is starting a whole new subject. The problem is that pronouns do not work that way. Not in English and certainly not in Greek.



However, because your interpretation demands that Mt. 24 is not talking about the destruction of the temple, you switch your understanding of the English and the Greek. We are supposed to let the words tell us what the interpretation is, not let the interpretation tell us what the words mean.



So which is more important to you? Understanding what the scripture actually says, or holding on to your interpretation no matter what.



I do not say this lightly to a brother. But the way you refuse to admit your were wrong, and the flippant way you change your position as if you were saying the same thing from day one, strongly suggest to me that you hold on to your futurism at any cost.



I know it is not easy to let go of cherished interpretations. I know, it was not easy for me to give up futurism. But I did because I am convinced that it is the correct interpretation of scripture. You appear unwilling to even consider the possibility that your interpretation is wrong.



Christ’s Olivet Discourse includes a series of events (wars, earthquakes, famines, false Christ’s, etc) that escalate like the birth pangs of childbirth. Therefore, we are to define ‘all these things’ as all the ‘events’ that Christ describes throughout His Discourse.



The problem is that you are trying to make the word these things”tauta” in this chapter mean the same thing every time. You tried to do that with v. 2 and were eventually forced to admit that in v. 2 it was referring to the temple. So now you are trying to get v. 3 to be reffering to v. 30. Pronouns refer to nouns. What they refer to is determined by the context. This is true in English and in Greek. In v. 3 tauta is referring back to the events Jesus described in v. 2. This is something that you agreed to until you were shown that Jesus was referring to the temple. Then you changed your tune.



In v. 3, it could not possibly referring to the ‘events’ Jesus describes because they had not been mentioned yet. “Tell us when these things will take place”? What things? The only thing that it could be referring to is the destruction of the temple in v. 2.


The word tauta is referring to the events described previously. However, to try and force it mean that in v. 3 does great violence to the text.

And your argument that Jesus never mentions the destruction of the temple after v. 2, is proof that the question is not about the temple is lame. Why should He mention the temple at all?


Disciples: What are the signs of the destruction of the temple?

Jesus: The temple will be destroyed.

Not a very good answer to that question. Yet, you seem to think that if that were the question, then Jesus would have given that answer. :no:

<snip> this has been addressed elsewhere <snip>


Terral I have had several debates with several open minded futurist. I have not been able to change any of their minds, nor they me, at least not about our overall interpretive schemes. But at least I make them think. I challenge them. And they do the same for me. Your stubborn refusal to admit mistakes, and your willingness to switch your understanding of scripture just to make your interpretation work is sad.


I debate in order to test my understanding of scripture. And in the process I have changed my mind on quite a few things. Why do you debate?

[Mickey]

And if you believe that Jesus was talking about the temple in v. 2 when he said “all these things”. You must mean that the disciples equated the destruction of “all these things” with the “end of the age”.
Faramir,

There is no rason to believe that the disciples equated the destruction of the Temple then standing with the "end of the age".Remember,there were separate questions--"Tell us,when shall these things be",which is in regard to the destruction of the Temple then standing.And then the disciples follow up with another question:

"And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the age?"(Mt.24:3).

The first question concerning the destruction of the TEmple then standing was answered by the Lord at Luke 21:21-25.Two differnt sieges of Jerusalem are in view in the Olivet Discourse.At Luke 21:21-25 the Lord describes the seige by Titus in AD 70.And that is the answer to the disciples question regarding the Temple then standing.

In Luke the "sign" is the compassing of Jerusalem by armies (v.20) but at Matthew 24:15 and Mark 13:14 the "sign" is the setting up of the abomination of desolation in the Holy Place.

But the presterists will ask,"The Lord prophesised that the Temple then standing would be destroyed,so how can this be made to a future yet to be rebuilt Temple?"

The preterists fail to understand the principle of "continuity" in the history of the Temple.The Temple could be completely destroyed and then be rebuilt and still be considered the same Temple.That is how Haggai could ask:

"Who is among you that saw this house in its former glory"(Hag.2:3).

And he says,"The glory of the latter house shall be greater that the former"(Hag.2:9).

So we can see that the Jews believed that any rebuilt Temple is the same Temple that preceded it.

Now perhaps you will address the earlier words of the Lord Jesus Christ when He described what would happen at the "end of the age" in His parable of the tares of the field:

"His disciples came unto him, saying, Declare unto us the parable of the tares of the field. He answered and said unto them, He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man; The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one; The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the age; and the reapers are the angels.As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this age"(Mt.13:36-40).

The Lord Jesus here is describing a judgment that will come upon the entire world at the "end of the age".Preterists like you seem to be able to close your eyes to these verses because they do not fit your mistaken views.In the Olivet Discourse the Lord makes it as plain as possible that there will be a judgment that will come "on all them that dwell on the face of the whole earth"(Lk.21:35).

You ask:
So which is more important to you? Understanding what the scripture actually says, or holding on to your interpretation no matter what.
I would ask you the same thing.You believe that the events surrounding the "great tribulation" occured in AD 70.However,if one understands the Scriptures it is clear that the whole world will be involved in the events surrounding the "great tribulation".It seems as if it is you who clings to your interpretations no matter what!
I debate in order to test my understanding of scripture. And in the process I have changed my mind on quite a few things.
You prove that you will not change your mind in regard to the basic teaching of the preterists no matter how many Scriptures that you are given that prove that the whole world will be involved in the events surrounding the "great tribulation".

If your purpose in debating these issues is to test your understanding of Scripture then you should realize by now that you get a big fat score of "F" for your understanding of eschatology.

You will not let Scripture be your guide in these matters but instead it is eschatolgy invented by men in which you place your trust.

In Christ,

Mickey

[Terral]

Faramir:
Faramir >> Gee Terral. I don’t know what could have possibly made me think that you said that Jesus was not talking about the Temple in Mt. 24:2. Unless it was your quotes in this thread:
Christ’s answer is based upon the question of the Twelve from verse 3. “As He was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately, saying, "Tell us, when will these things [ events ] happen, and what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?” Matt. 24:3. Christ was sitting alone on the Mount of Olives, and the Twelve approached Him. They asked Him ‘when’ these things (events) happen, and what will be the sign of “Your coming,” AND the “End of the Age.” They did not ask, “when will these buildings happened, and . . .” Christ began to tell them about when the Mount of Olives would be split in two (Zech. 14:3+4) at when His feet set down on the Mount of Olives at “Your coming” and the “End of the Age.” The Lord is describing when all these things are tumbling down, and NOT JUST THE TEMPLE.

You are trying to transform Christ’s Olivet Discourse into the Romans destroying the Temple in 70 AD. Okay, go into Matthew 24:3-31 and find the Romans destroying the Temple. Unfortunately for your case, those things do not appear in Christ’s answer. The ‘abomination of desolation’ (vs. 14) is being ‘set up’ (Dan. 11:31, 12:11), which Paul describes in 2Thes. 2:3+4 (taking his seat in the Temple of God displaying himself as God). The ‘man of sin’ (2Thes. 2:3) needs the Temple in order to display himself as God and thereby deceive the whole world into worshipping him. You have things backwards regarding your interpretation of ‘abomination of desolation.’
Faramir >> If we both agree that Christ was talking about the Temple in Mt. 24:2, then why did you accuse me of misquoting Christ as saying “Temple”? And why did you say Christ left the temple in v. 1, if you believe he is talking about it in v. 1.
Christ never said “The Temple” in verse 2, but “these things.” He never mentions the Temple in the remainder of the Discourse. He shows the ‘man of sin’ in the holy place (vs. 15), but not to tear the Temple down. You are confusing the historical events of 70 AD with the fulfillment of Scripture at the ‘end of the age.’ When the Mount of Olives is split in two (Zech. 14:3+4), then that earthquake will destroy EVERYTHING.
Faramir >> And if you believe that Jesus was talking about the temple in v. 2 when he said “all these things”. You must mean that the disciples equated the destruction of “all these things” with the “end of the age”. Congratulations. You are now a preterist.
Please . . . We are ‘caught up’ (1Thes. 4:17) when the ‘thousand years’ (2Pet. 3:8) day of the Lord (2Pet. 3:10) is ‘at hand.’ 2Thes. 2:2. We see all of the ‘day of the Lord’ events fulfilled from heaven, which includes everything in Matthew 24. The Romans leveled many cities during the domination of the Roman Empire of which Jerusalem was just one. You saying that the ‘age’ changed over that event does not mean anything.
Faramir >> Again, you bring up the point that Christ left the Temple in verse 1 and asked the question about ‘all these things” in v. 2. Now you are saying that Jesus was talking about the Temple in v. 2? So why even mention the fact that He left the temple?
Because you are Pretending that He is sitting in the Temple giving His Olivet Discourse, when in reality He is sitting on the Mount of Olives across the KidronValley. The Twelve were separated from Him for a time, and came to Him again in verse 3. They asked ‘when’ these ‘events’ take place that they had been discussing on their hike up down into the valley and up the Mount of Olives. They are the ones who connected these events to “Your coming” and the “end of the age.” Did Christ mention that in verses 1 or 2? No! Where did they get that information, and how are they making the connections between those three things (events, His coming, end of the age?). Obviously they did not make the trip in dead silence . . . My point is that Christ’s answer (vs. 4-31) is based upon the question from the Twelve in verse 3. The destruction of the temple buildings is only one very small part of EVERYTHING being destroyed at the ‘end of the age.’ Zech. 14:3+4.
Terral Original >> The important thing is that the question of the Twelve (vs.3) is connected back to Christ’s question and statement in verse 2. They are asking about ‘all these things’ that shall be destroyed at the ‘end of the age.’ We are to place an equal sign ( = ) at the end of verse 3. Christ’s answer (apokrinomai #611) begins in verse 4, as He begins to describe the events leading up to “Your coming” and the “end of the age” when all “these things” will be destroyed. The right interpretation has nothing to do with the Greek, but in acknowledging that Christ’s answer (Matt. 24:4-31) fits the question (Matt. 24:3).

Faramir >> This quote, along with your declaration in post #8 of this thread is an excellent argument for preterism. In Mt. 24:2 Jesus is talking about the temple buildings (from post #8 in this thread) The disciples question in v. 3 is related back to Jesus statement in v. 2 (above) The disciples were asking about the destruction of “all these things” that Jesus was talking about in v. 2 (above) Therefore, Jesus was talking about the destruction of the Temple in Mt. 24.
That is ridiculous . . . The entire Mount of Olives is split in two (Zech. 14:3+4) at the end of the age. Obviously everything in the entire region will be leveled if not the entire world. Nothing like that occurred when those bad Romans came and burned down the city in 70 AD.
Faramir >> All the premises came straight from Terral. The conclusion is inescable. Either Terral is a preterist, or he has done some major back peddling. Fess up. You are really a preterist right?
No sir . . . once again your statements are far too foolish to waste time rehashing the same points . . .

In Christ,

Terral

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

Faramir:

Faramir >> Gee Terral. I don’t know what could have possibly made me think that you said that Jesus was not talking about the Temple in Mt. 24:2. Unless it was your quotes in this thread:

Christ’s answer is based upon the question of the Twelve from verse 3.



Mark 13:1+2 parallels Matthew 24:1+2. We already understand that Christ is talking about the Temple buildings in those two verses in BOTH CHAPTERS



But the important thing is that the question of the Twelve (vs.3) is connected back to Christ’s question and statement in verse 2. They are asking about ‘all these things’ that shall be destroyed at the ‘end of the age.’

“As He was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately, saying, "Tell us, when will these things [ events ] happen, and what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?” Matt. 24:3. Christ was sitting alone on the Mount of Olives, and the Twelve approached Him. They asked Him ‘when’ these things (events) happen, and what will be the sign of “Your coming,” AND the “End of the Age.” They did not ask, “when will these buildings happened, and . . .” Christ began to tell them about when the Mount of Olives would be split in two (Zech. 14:3+4) at when His feet set down on the Mount of Olives at “Your coming” and the “End of the Age.” The Lord is describing when all these things are tumbling down, and NOT JUST THE TEMPLE.



But the important thing is that the question of the Twelve (vs.3) is connected back to Christ’s question and statement in verse 2. They are asking about ‘all these things’ that shall be destroyed at the ‘end of the age.’



You are trying to transform Christ’s Olivet Discourse into the Romans destroying the Temple in 70 AD. Okay, go into Matthew 24:3-31 and find the Romans destroying the Temple. Unfortunately for your case, those things do not appear in Christ’s answer. The ‘abomination of desolation’ (vs. 14) is being ‘set up’ (Dan. 11:31, 12:11), which Paul describes in 2Thes. 2:3+4 (taking his seat in the Temple of God displaying himself as God). The ‘man of sin’ (2Thes. 2:3) needs the Temple in order to display himself as God and thereby deceive the whole world into worshipping him. You have things backwards regarding your interpretation of ‘abomination of desolation.’



And your argument that Jesus never mentions the destruction of the temple after v. 2, is proof that the question is not about the temple is lame. Why should He mention the temple at all?

Disciples: What are the signs of the destruction of the temple?

Jesus: The temple will be destroyed.

Not a very good answer to that question. Yet, you seem to think that if that were the question, then Jesus would have given that answer.





Faramir >> If we both agree that Christ was talking about the Temple in Mt. 24:2, then why did you accuse me of misquoting Christ as saying “Temple”? And why did you say Christ left the temple in v. 1, if you believe he is talking about it in v. 1.

Christ never said “The Temple” in verse 2, but “these things.”



Mark 13:1+2 parallels Matthew 24:1+2. We already understand that Christ is talking about the Temple buildings in those two verses in BOTH CHAPTERS.



Which is it Terral. You are contradicting yourself. Was He talking about the temple in v. 2 or not? What does these things in verse 2 refer to?



Oh, never mind you already answered that?


Are we to define ‘all these things*’ as all these ‘buildings’ of verse 1+2


So, by your own admission “these things” in v. 2 is the temple buildings. You accuse me of misquoting Christ because I did not say He said ‘these things”, even though you and I both agree that by these things in v. 2 He is talking about the temple buildings.



You sound like my 10 year old:



Me: Pick up this mess.

10 YO: OK

Me (later): I told you to pick up your room and you didn’t you are in big trouble.

10 YO: You said, pick up this mess not pick up your room.





He never mentions the Temple in the remainder of the Discourse. He shows the ‘man of sin’ in the holy place (vs. 15), but not to tear the Temple down. You are confusing the historical events of 70 AD with the fulfillment of Scripture at the ‘end of the age.’ When the Mount of Olives is split in two (Zech. 14:3+4), then that earthquake will destroy EVERYTHING.



And your argument that Jesus never mentions the destruction of the temple after v. 2, is proof that the question is not about the temple is lame. Why should He mention the temple at all?

Disciples: What are the signs of the destruction of the temple?

Jesus: The temple will be destroyed.

Not a very good answer to that question. Yet, you seem to think that if that were the question, then Jesus would have given that answer.



Note: He never mentions the man of sin anywhere in Ch. 24 either.



Faramir >> And if you believe that Jesus was talking about the temple in v. 2 when he said “all these things”. You must mean that the disciples equated the destruction of “all these things” with the “end of the age”. Congratulations. You are now a preterist.

Please . . . We are ‘caught up’ (1Thes. 4:17) when the ‘thousand years’ (2Pet. 3:8) day of the Lord (2Pet. 3:10) is ‘at hand.’ 2Thes. 2:2. We see all of the ‘day of the Lord’ events fulfilled from heaven, which includes everything in Matthew 24. The Romans leveled many cities during the domination of the Roman Empire of which Jerusalem was just one. You saying that the ‘age’ changed over that event does not mean anything.



But the important thing is that the question of the Twelve (vs.3) is connected back to Christ’s question and statement in verse 2. They are asking about ‘all these things’ that shall be destroyed at the ‘end of the age.’



Faramir >> Again, you bring up the point that Christ left the Temple in verse 1 and asked the question about ‘all these things” in v. 2. Now you are saying that Jesus was talking about the Temple in v. 2? So why even mention the fact that He left the temple?

Because you are Pretending that He is sitting in the Temple giving His Olivet Discourse, when in reality He is sitting on the Mount of Olives across the KidronValley. The Twelve were separated from Him for a time, and came to Him again in verse 3. They asked ‘when’ these ‘events’ take place that they had been discussing on their hike up down into the valley and up the Mount of Olives. They are the ones who connected these events to “Your coming” and the “end of the age.” Did Christ mention that in verses 1 or 2?



But the important thing is that the question of the Twelve (vs.3) is connected back to Christ’s question and statement in verse 2. They are asking about ‘all these things’ that shall be destroyed at the ‘end of the age.’



No! Where did they get that information, and how are they making the connections between those three things (events, His coming, end of the age?). Obviously they did not make the trip in dead silence . . . My point is that Christ’s answer (vs. 4-31) is based upon the question from the Twelve in verse 3. The destruction of the temple buildings is only one very small part of EVERYTHING being destroyed at the ‘end of the age.’ Zech. 14:3+4.



But the important thing is that the question of the Twelve (vs.3) is connected back to Christ’s question and statement in verse 2. They are asking about ‘all these things’ that shall be destroyed at the ‘end of the age.’



Terral Original >> The important thing is that the question of the Twelve (vs.3) is connected back to Christ’s question and statement in verse 2. They are asking about ‘all these things’ that shall be destroyed at the ‘end of the age.’ We are to place an equal sign ( = ) at the end of verse 3. Christ’s answer (apokrinomai #611) begins in verse 4, as He begins to describe the events leading up to “Your coming” and the “end of the age” when all “these things” will be destroyed. The right interpretation has nothing to do with the Greek, but in acknowledging that Christ’s answer (Matt. 24:4-31) fits the question (Matt. 24:3).

Faramir >> This quote, along with your declaration in post #8 of this thread is an excellent argument for preterism. In Mt. 24:2 Jesus is talking about the temple buildings (from post #8 in this thread) The disciples question in v. 3 is related back to Jesus statement in v. 2 (above) The disciples were asking about the destruction of “all these things” that Jesus was talking about in v. 2 (above) Therefore, Jesus was talking about the destruction of the Temple in Mt. 24.

That is ridiculous . . . You said it not me.





Faramir >> All the premises came straight from Terral. The conclusion is inescable. Either Terral is a preterist, or he has done some major back peddling. Fess up. You are really a preterist right?

No sir . . . once again your statements are far too foolish to waste time rehashing the same points . . .



Yet you do it anyway. Notice my cut and paste answers. That is because you bring up the same points over and over again. Notice also that I use your words as some of my responses. You contradict yourself as well.



You were going on and on about how Mt. 2 was not about the temple. You were going on and on about how the question in v. 3 was related to “all these things” in v. 2. Then when you were shown Mk. 13:1-2, you realized that v. 2 it had to be about the temple, you conveniently changed your mind without telling anyone. Did you really think no one would notice?. You have been backtracking ever sense.



The smart thing to do would be to admit that you were wrong about Mt. 24:2, but pride is a powerful monster.

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

Mark13:2 And Jesus answering said unto him, Seest thou these great buildings? there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.



I think the question here is whether Jesus and the NT are consistent in their teaching. It wasn't unusual for the apostles to misunderstand what Jesus was talking about.



John4:32 But he said unto them, I have meat to eat that ye know not of.

33 Therefore said the disciples one to another, Hath any man brought him ought to eat?



Mat16:5 And when his disciples were come to the other side, they had forgotten to take bread.

6 Then Jesus said unto them, Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.

7 And they reasoned among themselves, saying, It is because we have taken no bread.



But from both of those passages it is clear that the disciples were confused. What from Mark 13:2 makes you think the disciples were confused when they ask their questions?



The 17th century commentator Matthew henry observes:

Verses 5-12. Christ speaks of spiritual things under a similitude, and the disciples misunderstand him of carnal things. He took it ill that they should think him as thoughtful about bread as they were; that they should be so little acquainted with his way of preaching. Then understood they what he meant. Christ teaches by the Spirit of wisdom in the heart, opening the understanding to the Spirit of revelation in the word.



Mat23:37 "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing.

38 Look, your house is left to you desolate.



What was the house that was left desolate? If it was the temple, why did Jesus speak as if it was already destroyed?



How do you make the connection with desolate and destroyed?



Luke19:41 And when he was come near, he beheld the city, and wept over it,

42 Saying, If thou hadst known, even thou, at least in this thy day, the things which belong unto thy peace! but now they are hid from thine eyes.

43 For the days shall come upon thee, that thine enemies shall cast a trench about thee, and compass thee round, and keep thee in on every side,

44 And shall lay thee even with the ground, and thy children within thee; and they shall not leave in thee one stone upon another; because thou knewest not the time of thy visitation.



Jesus speaks of an entire city here. Nowhere in history is it stated that every stone in Jerusalem was taken down in 70AD. Josephus states the contrary.



Well since you are fond of Matthew Henry lets see what he had to say about this:



Neglecting the great salvation often brings temporal judgments upon a people; it did so upon Jerusalem in less than forty years after this, when all that Christ here foretold was exactly fulfilled. The Romans besieged the city, cast a trench about it, compassed it round, and kept their inhabitants in on every side. Josephus relates that Titus ran up a wall in a very short time, which surrounded the city, and cut off all hopes of escaping. [2.] They laid it even with the ground. Titus commanded his soldiers to dig up the city, and the whole compass of it was levelled, except three towers; see Josephus’s history of the wars of the Jews, 5.356-360; 7.1. Not only the city, but the citizens were laid even with the ground (thy children within thee), by the cruel slaughters that were made of them: and there was scarcely one stone left upon another.



John2:19 Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.

20 Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days?

21 But he spake of the temple of his body.

XREF's: Mt 26:60,61 27:40 Mk 14:58 15:29 Mt 12:40 27:63 1Co 3:16 6:19 2Co 6:16 Eph 2:20-22 1Pe 2:4,5 Heb 8:2



Good point. Jesus did refer to himself metaphorically as the temple. However, I think the context of the passage needs to be taken into consideration in determining when to take a spiritual meaning and when to take it literally.



In the Olivet Discourse, the disciples were coming out of the real physical temple. Jesus asked them “see these buildings”. There is no indication of a spiritual meaning. Significantly there is no mention of the temple being rebuilt. And there is on indication that the disciples believed He was talking spiritually.



So if there is any consistency here Jesus had to be looking through spiritual eyes.



Mark 8:18 Having eyes, see ye not? and having ears, hear ye not? and do ye not remember?

Mk 4:12 De 29:4 Ps 69:23 115:5-8 Isa 6:9,10 42:18-20 44:18 Jer 5:21 Mt 13:14,15 Joh 12:40 Ac 28:26,27 Ro 11:8



Jesus spoke of the spiritual temple and city.



He also spoke of the physical and physical temple.





Rev21:14 And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.

XREF's: Mat 16:18 1Co 3:10,11 Ga 2:9 Eph 2:20 3:5 4:11,12



I think it is a case of one verse taken out of context versus many taken in context.



I think it is case of each verse taken in its proper context. No preterist that I am aware of denies the spiritual aspect of the verses you site. I would love to hear more though. This is a new argument to me. Thanks.



:opus:

[Mickey]

Earlier I answered the points that the preterists raised in regard to the disciple's question concerning the Temple then standing.In fact,I have answered it twice.

But there has not been even one preterist that have addressed what I said.Again,they prove that they are able to close their eyes to any Scripture that proves that their ideas are wrong.They "pretend" that certain Scriptures do not exist and prove over and over that they are indeed the "great pretenders"!

Perhaps this time one of themn will step up to the plate and answer the following comments that I made in regard to the Lord's answer in regard to the question concerning the Temple then standing:

There is no reason to believe that the disciples equated the destruction of the Temple then standing with the "end of the age".Remember,there were separate questions--"Tell us,when shall these things be",which is in regard to the destruction of the Temple then standing.And then the disciples follow up with another question:

"And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the age?"(Mt.24:3).

The first question concerning the destruction of the Temple then standing was answered by the Lord at Luke 21:21-25.Two differnt sieges of Jerusalem are in view in the Olivet Discourse.At Luke 21:21-25 the Lord describes the seige by Titus in AD 70.And that is the answer to the disciples question regarding the Temple then standing.

In Luke the "sign" is the compassing of Jerusalem by armies (v.20) but at Matthew 24:15 and Mark 13:14 the "sign" is the setting up of the abomination of desolation in the Holy Place.

But the presterists will ask,"The Lord prophesised that the Temple then standing would be destroyed,so how can this be made to a future yet to be rebuilt Temple?"

The preterists fail to understand the principle of "continuity" in the history of the Temple.The Temple could be completely destroyed and then be rebuilt and still be considered the same Temple.That is how Haggai could ask:

"Who is among you that saw this house in its former glory"(Hag.2:3).

And he says,"The glory of the latter house shall be greater that the former"(Hag.2:9).

So we can see that the Scriptures reveal that any rebuilt Temple is the same Temple that preceded it.

Now,again I will ask.Is there at least one preterist who will step up to the plate and address these points that I have made?

In Christ,

Mickey